Greed seems to be an inevitable part of human nature - survival of the fittest. Even when the greediest people are those whose survival is least at risk.
Democracy takes the edge off that greed. Ancient lords took what they wanted and left the poorest to starve. Now the rich must at least make sure that enough of the rest of us have enough to keep us quiet so that they can get richer in peace.
Up to now we have elected representatives to Parliament with delegated authority to make decisions on our behalf because it would have been grossly impractical to hold referenda (referendums?) several times a month. Unfortunately too many elected representatives abuse their position for personal advantage. And allegiance to political parties takes precedence over the wishes of the people who elect them.
Voting to elect people to Parliament and Local Government should continue in the normal way because people need to have confidence in it.
However (even though politicans won't like it)technology is now good enough for many issues to be decided by electronic referenda instead of by Government. Every TV channel routinely holds nationwide votes to find the winners of trivial competitions. With only minor adjustments similar technology could be used for referenda on any number of issues.
I wonder how people would vote if Government allowed them to decide the top rate of tax for people earning over £300,000 a year or with over £3 million in assets? Or if they were allowed to decide the maximum bonus for bankers?
There is no techincal or economic reason why this can't be done. The only obstacle is the vested interests of those whose wealth and influence might be undermined.
